When we need to =DO= something to make SRU-CQL and SRW-CQL compatible, I would strongly advise against a difference between CQL for SRW and CQL for SRU.
>>> [log in to unmask] 18-06-02 14:51 >>>
> As soon as queries get complicated you need postfix in your example.
> Apart from that the number of name/value pairs will tend to get out of hand.
> In practice it is much simpler to work with a string. I would stick with
So the XML representation should be resolvable easily into the equivalent
string, probably by just stripping out all of the tags, putting a dot
between set and index and quotes around the field. Then SRW/SRU are still
compatable, but SRW implementers get the bonus of being able to use
existing XML tools to parse out the query.
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I